Xbox One and PS4 are a generation ahead of the best PC, says EA CTO
275 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BCell;40784313]2 years after the PS4 and XBOX One is released, a more powerful Gaming PC will over take them. By then, their hardware would technically be obsolete.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean?
Are you trying to say PCs aren't more powerful already?
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40783385]well I told you to watch tek syndicate's videos about them, but you just responded with ''HAHA TEK SYNDICATE''. if you don't think they're reliable then that's up to you but I disagree. and I doubt that they're wrong in their assessment just from talking to people with i7s on forums about their performance. I know that right now i7s are better to have, I know that right now intel is ahead of AMD, and I know that a majority of games have better performance on i7s, but what I've been trying to say is the fx series is not bad at all and as time has passed their performance has increased significantly due to better optimization on both games and on windows itself. so with the combination of that and future iterations on the design, they could eventually surpass intel.
[editline]25th May 2013[/editline]
I'm deluded for saying that fx series has better performance in some games? I didn't say a lot of games, there's not that many, but there ARE a few. I'm telling you what my experience has been with the 8150, and I've pointed out a source (considered by many in the hardware community to be very reliable) to the claim that there has been misconceptions about the fx series.
edit: if you're actually interested in a source
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE[/url][/QUOTE]
Sorry, I don't know a single person who's "into hardware" that thinks Tek Syndicate is anything more than entertainment, and maybe a casual review channel.
They're [I]not[/I] more reputable than Anandtech, Tomshardware, Guru3D, etc., and that's part of why I think Tek Syndicate is a [I]bad[/I] source. If you watch their video their results are all over the place, and that makes me question their testing methodology. How long was the run? How consistently were they able to carry it out? The i5 3570K shouldn't be overtaking the i7 3770K in any runs, and it definitely shouldn't perform better when streaming and gaming at the same time. And running a game at max settings when you want to benchmark CPU performance is a bad idea - if the GPU isn't at any point a bottleneck, what you're seeing is purely CPU performance. This is not the way Tek Syndicate did it.
He even says "Remember, this is MAX SETTINGS" like it's a good thing in this case.
The inclusion of the 3820 was also a bit weird - it's a more expensive part not commonly part of a gaming build, and what makes it even more niche is the fact that it's the only quad core part on the LGA2011 platform. It's weird, and the inclusion of an i3 3220 would've been much more fitting, along with a lower end piledriver.
And I did write in my last post that the FX series isn't necessarily that bad for the price - it's just that right now the i5 3570K is only a few bucks more, and Haswell's just around the corner.
Apparently the APU benchmarks between a 7850 and a 7870. So as far as video performance is concerned, anyone with something better than that has nothing to worry about. As far as processing performance goes, it just isn't doing as much. A PC with exactly the same internals would obviously suffer (Just consider running a PC with a 1.6 GHz processor...), but then again, most of the mid end processors are running 3.0 GHz+. Basically, they're bragging about how they can do more because they aren't juggling all of the processing responsibilities of a standard desktop. Hooray for them.
Fact of the matter is, actual gaming performance WILL BE BETTER on a high end gaming PC. First of all, they're not going to be utilizing the full power of the machine for the first couple of years. Second of all, current high end desktops have hardware that is simply more powerful (and I can hear Microsoft going "But consoles don't consume as much power"). Look, consoles do some things better than a PC, but honestly, sheer performance of a next gen console vs a high end gaming desktop will show better performance on a desktop, especially if you're only comparing the things gamers actually care about.
The only reason I can be so sure about this is because companies have been doing this for years. They did the same thing with the 360 and the PS3, and they even did it with the PS1 and the XBox. They do this to boost sales because they know that some idiots will believe the stories. Honestly, if it was actually meant to bring PC gamers over, or if it was meant to poke a hole in the high end gaming desktop market, they would have posted the benchmarks they did, and the machines they used. I mean really, who takes benchmarks and just goes "yup, this one performed better, I said so, so it must be true." It's obviously just a con to squeeze more money out of the kids who don't know better.
[QUOTE=tidus1112;40786738]Apparently the APU benchmarks between a 7850 and a 7870. So as far as video performance is concerned, anyone with something better than that has nothing to worry about. As far as processing performance goes, it just isn't doing as much. A PC with exactly the same internals would obviously suffer (Just consider running a PC with a 1.6 GHz processor...), but then again, most of the mid end processors are running 3.0 GHz+. Basically, they're bragging about how they can do more because they aren't juggling all of the processing responsibilities of a standard desktop. Hooray for them.
Fact of the matter is, actual gaming performance WILL BE BETTER on a high end gaming PC. First of all, they're not going to be utilizing the full power of the machine for the first couple of years. Second of all, current high end desktops have hardware that is simply more powerful (and I can hear Microsoft going "But consoles don't consume as much power"). Look, consoles do some things better than a PC, but honestly, sheer performance of a next gen console vs a high end gaming desktop will show better performance on a desktop, especially if you're only comparing the things gamers actually care about.
The only reason I can be so sure about this is because companies have been doing this for years. They did the same thing with the 360 and the PS3, and they even did it with the PS1 and the XBox. They do this to boost sales because they know that some idiots will believe the stories. Honestly, if it was actually meant to bring PC gamers over, or if it was meant to poke a hole in the high end gaming desktop market, they would have posted the benchmarks they did, and the machines they used. I mean really, who takes benchmarks and just goes "yup, this one performed better, I said so, so it must be true." It's obviously just a con to squeeze more money out of the kids who don't know better.[/QUOTE]
The idea that consoles didn't have background tasks like PCs and as such have always had better performance than PCs is very flaky--most console games' native resolutions were at or [U]below[/U] 720p (they were just upscaled).
I haven't used a desktop PC in a long while that has used more than 5-6% CPU usage for all desktop tasks combined; maybe back when it was single core Pentiums those evil nasty desktop tasks doing things in the background was a big deal, but nowadays with multicore processors it really isn't a big deal and the trade-off (that being you lose 5% CPU so you can play music/use VoIP/record with fraps/keep 500 applications open) makes it worth it.
And yeah, most of the shit in the media about the latest console generation has been bullshit. If you're in the market for a console, you should realize first and foremost that you're purchasing a [B][U]budget system[/U][/B] that [B]compromises[/B] on everything to make it [B]cost less[/B], all of these bullshit benchmarks people keep trying to pull out of their ass for consoles that haven't even been released yet are just peculiar.
[QUOTE=tidus1112;40786738]Apparently the APU benchmarks between a 7850 and a 7870. So as far as video performance is concerned, anyone with something better than that has nothing to worry about. As far as processing performance goes, it just isn't doing as much. A PC with exactly the same internals would obviously suffer (Just consider running a PC with a 1.6 GHz processor...), but then again, most of the mid end processors are running 3.0 GHz+. Basically, they're bragging about how they can do more because they aren't juggling all of the processing responsibilities of a standard desktop. Hooray for them.
Fact of the matter is, actual gaming performance WILL BE BETTER on a high end gaming PC. First of all, they're not going to be utilizing the full power of the machine for the first couple of years. Second of all, current high end desktops have hardware that is simply more powerful (and I can hear Microsoft going "But consoles don't consume as much power"). Look, consoles do some things better than a PC, but honestly, sheer performance of a next gen console vs a high end gaming desktop will show better performance on a desktop, especially if you're only comparing the things gamers actually care about.
The only reason I can be so sure about this is because companies have been doing this for years. They did the same thing with the 360 and the PS3, and they even did it with the PS1 and the XBox. They do this to boost sales because they know that some idiots will believe the stories. Honestly, if it was actually meant to bring PC gamers over, or if it was meant to poke a hole in the high end gaming desktop market, they would have posted the benchmarks they did, and the machines they used. I mean really, who takes benchmarks and just goes "yup, this one performed better, I said so, so it must be true." It's obviously just a con to squeeze more money out of the kids who don't know better.[/QUOTE]
Where do you have the 7850-7870 figure from? Maybe with [I]a lot[/I] of optimization they could get it up there, but hardware-wise it's closer to a 7770/7790.
Hopefully only console owners will continue to buy EA games and these butt-nuggets will run themselves out of business.
[QUOTE=Memobot;40778237]459.
I've never seen so many funnies.[/QUOTE]
Go look at the justin cunt thread
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40786595]Sorry, I don't know a single person who's "into hardware" that thinks Tek Syndicate is anything more than entertainment, and maybe a casual review channel.
They're [I]not[/I] more reputable than Anandtech, Tomshardware, Guru3D, etc., and that's part of why I think Tek Syndicate is a [I]bad[/I] source. If you watch their video their results are all over the place, and that makes me question their testing methodology. How long was the run? How consistently were they able to carry it out? The i5 3570K shouldn't be overtaking the i7 3770K in any runs, and it definitely shouldn't perform better when streaming and gaming at the same time. And running a game at max settings when you want to benchmark CPU performance is a bad idea - if the GPU isn't at any point a bottleneck, what you're seeing is purely CPU performance. This is not the way Tek Syndicate did it.
He even says "Remember, this is MAX SETTINGS" like it's a good thing in this case.
The inclusion of the 3820 was also a bit weird - it's a more expensive part not commonly part of a gaming build, and what makes it even more niche is the fact that it's the only quad core part on the LGA2011 platform. It's weird, and the inclusion of an i3 3220 would've been much more fitting, along with a lower end piledriver.
And I did write in my last post that the FX series isn't necessarily that bad for the price - it's just that right now the i5 3570K is only a few bucks more, and Haswell's just around the corner.[/QUOTE]
their results are ''all over the place'' because they're not trying to prove that the 8350 is now the best processor of all time and should be worshiped by all humans. they're showing games where it underperforms and games where it outperforms because they're unbiased. that video isn't one of their news clips, nobody is going to watch 5 minutes of a bearded guy reading numbers for ''entertainment''. there's not even a vague piece of humor throughout that entire video. it's 100% hardware focused. their careers are in computer technology, their hobbies are computer technology and they run a website dedicated to computer technology AND they aslo happen to hold intel in very high regard so if that's not a good enough source for you then that's not my problem.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40789521]their results are ''all over the place'' because they're not trying to prove that the 8350 is now the best processor of all time and should be worshiped by all humans. they're showing games where it underperforms and games where it outperforms because they're unbiased. that video isn't one of their news clips, nobody is going to watch 5 minutes of a bearded guy reading numbers for ''entertainment''. there's not even a vague piece of humor throughout that entire video. it's 100% hardware focused. their careers are in computer technology, their hobbies are computer technology and they run a website dedicated to computer technology AND they aslo happen to hold intel in very high regard so if that's not a good enough source for you then that's not my problem.[/QUOTE]
Sorry but it's not a valid source, that is completely indisputable and if you do you're arguing with FACTS. It's not that it's not a good enough source for him, it's that it's not a legitimate source for anybody who wants to know what the truth is.
The fact that they don't publish their methodology properly, and their test bench specs have significant hardware differences beyond what is necessary means according to the scientific method their testing is [b]automatically invalidated.[/b] Testing has to be able to be reproduced by someone else, that has been the basis of drawing conclusions from testing for four hundred years.
Blatant errors in testing like improper conditions(max settings will lead to GPU bottlenecking) and blatant errors in the testing itself due to either inaccurate methodology or not using multiple runs(i5>i7, give me a break) just further show how they deviate from what is fundamentally required to be considered a valid source of information from testing of their hardware. I'm sorry, it's not a valid source and based on everything you've posted in this thread you're still entirely wrong.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40789521]their results are ''all over the place'' because they're not trying to prove that the 8350 is now the best processor of all time and should be worshiped by all humans. they're showing games where it underperforms and games where it outperforms because they're unbiased. that video isn't one of their news clips, nobody is going to watch 5 minutes of a bearded guy reading numbers for ''entertainment''. there's not even a vague piece of humor throughout that entire video. it's 100% hardware focused. their careers are in computer technology, their hobbies are computer technology and they run a website dedicated to computer technology AND they aslo happen to hold intel in very high regard so if that's not a good enough source for you then that's not my problem.[/QUOTE]
You seem a bit confused - their results are not all over the place because AMD sometimes outperforms the other parts, they're all over the place because the i5 overtakes the i7 in some runs, because the i5 (I think, it's not a few hours since i watched that vid) for some reason performs better while streaming. There's inconsistencies where they shouldn't be, and that automatically invalidates any conclusion you might try to draw from that trainwreck of a test.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40789817]You seem a bit confused - their results are not all over the place because AMD sometimes outperforms the other parts, they're all over the place because the i5 overtakes the i7 in some runs, because the i5 (I think, it's not a few hours since i watched that vid) for some reason performs better while streaming. There's inconsistencies where they shouldn't be, and that automatically invalidates any conclusion you might try to draw from that trainwreck of a test.[/QUOTE]
the performance differences in streaming could be related to poor optimization of the application or the hardware itself. if you look at any accurate benchmarks of tomb raider you'll see the GTX 560, GTX 570 and even a GTX 460 drastically outperforming a 670 despite the blatant fact that the 670 is highly superior to all those cards. so does this invalidate every benchmarking site you use, since most of them probably benchmarked tomb raider? no, it doesn't. if you have other reasons why they're ''all over the place'' then by all means, let me hear them, but inferior products outperforming superior products is extremely common.
[editline]26th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kaabii;40789554]Sorry but it's not a valid source, that is completely indisputable and if you do you're arguing with FACTS. It's not that it's not a good enough source for him, it's that it's not a legitimate source for anybody who wants to know what the truth is.
The fact that they don't publish their methodology properly, and their test bench specs have significant hardware differences beyond what is necessary means according to the scientific method their testing is [b]automatically invalidated.[/b] Testing has to be able to be reproduced by someone else, that has been the basis of drawing conclusions from testing for four hundred years.
Blatant errors in testing like improper conditions(max settings will lead to GPU bottlenecking) and blatant errors in the testing itself due to either inaccurate methodology or not using multiple runs(i5>i7, give me a break) just further show how they deviate from what is fundamentally required to be considered a valid source of information from testing of their hardware. I'm sorry, it's not a valid source and based on everything you've posted in this thread you're still entirely wrong.[/QUOTE]
they tested every game at multiple graphics settings, and if max settings on metro 2033 is going to cause the GPU to bottle neck, how is this relevant when they used the same GPU for both CPU tests. if it's going to bottleneck, it's going to do it to both CPUs.
''their test bench specs have significant hardware differences beyond what is necessary means''
I must be misunderstanding what you're trying to say here, because the way I'm reading it, you're saying they changed other parts of the hardware while testing.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;40754726]I bet you that my 570 will be able to run every single xboned and ps4 launch title better than the consoles[/QUOTE]
idk bout that. My 680FTW cant handle Crysis 3 on ultra
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40790711]the performance differences in streaming could be related to poor optimization of the application or the hardware itself. if you look at any accurate benchmarks of tomb raider you'll see the GTX 560, GTX 570 and even a GTX 460 drastically outperforming a 670 despite the blatant fact that the 670 is highly superior to all those cards. so does this invalidate every benchmarking site you use, since most of them probably benchmarked tomb raider? no, it doesn't. if you have other reasons why they're ''all over the place'' then by all means, let me hear them, but inferior products outperforming superior products is extremely common.
[editline]26th May 2013[/editline]
they tested every game at multiple graphics settings, and if max settings on metro 2033 is going to cause the GPU to bottle neck, how is this relevant when they used the same GPU for both CPU tests. if it's going to bottleneck, it's going to do it to both CPUs.
[/QUOTE]
You're missing the fact that the GTX 4/5/6 series are architecturally quite different, while the i7 3770K and i5 3570K are pretty similar. You're also ignoring the part where the i5 3570K scored higher while streaming - that shouldn't happen no matter what. You seem intent on basing your entire argument on only [I]one[/I] source that is sketchy at best, and unusable at worst. Stop doing that, because it isn't helping your argument. If you found multiple reputable sources that supports your argument, I'd be much more inclined to change my mind.
Well I'm glad this thread stayed on topic.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40791142]You're missing the fact that the GTX 4/5/6 series are architecturally quite different, while the i7 3770K and i5 3570K are pretty similar. You're also ignoring the part where the i5 3570K scored higher while streaming - that shouldn't happen no matter what. You seem intent on basing your entire argument on only [I]one[/I] source that is sketchy at best, and unusable at worst. Stop doing that, because it isn't helping your argument. If you found multiple reputable sources that supports your argument, I'd be much more inclined to change my mind.[/QUOTE]
I think if I showed you results from anywhere else that showed anything slightly deviating from public perception you would add that site to your ''invalid'' list. regardless, you can look yourself and see that the sites you listed do not have a comprehensive analysis of the FX series and are not at all interested in changing that. everyone disregards the fx series so no one ever bothers to take a closer look at them.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40791825]I think if I showed you results from anywhere else that showed anything slightly deviating from public perception you would add that site to your ''invalid'' list. regardless, you can look yourself and see that the sites you listed do not have a comprehensive analysis of the FX series and are not at all interested in changing that. everyone disregards the fx series so no one ever bothers to take a closer look at them.[/QUOTE]
You mean like Tomshardware re-ran their tests when WIndows 8 came out? Or after the Windows 7 update that supposedly changed how threads were managed on Bulldozer and Piledriver based CPUs? Yeah, none of the review sites want AMD to suceed at all. You seem somewhat delusional - why would review sites that even recommend AMD's APUs (and in some cases even a mid-range Piledriver!) not want AMD to suceed? And why would they go through so much trouble just to make AMD seem like a failure? That's just insane.
And come on, just post some kind of source, just to show you at least have one. Otherwise this is completely fruitless.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40791940]You mean like Tomshardware re-ran their tests when WIndows 8 came out? Or after the Windows 7 update that supposedly changed how threads were managed on Bulldozer and Piledriver based CPUs? Yeah, none of the review sites want AMD to suceed at all. You seem somewhat delusional - why would review sites that even recommend AMD's APUs (and in some cases even a mid-range Piledriver!) not want AMD to suceed? And why would they go through so much trouble just to make AMD seem like a failure? That's just insane.
And come on, just post some kind of source, just to show you at least have one. Otherwise this is completely fruitless.[/QUOTE]
I never said they're part of an anti-AMD conspiracy. I said they don't think they're missing anything with the FX series so they're not looking into it any further than that. I tried looking for intel benchmarks and 8150 benchmarks but all the results I found were useless to this discussion. my ''source'' is not some article I read or review on a hardware site. it's my experience with having the 8150 myself, and talking to other people who have i7s and hearing what their experience with certain games is like.
''just post some kind of source'' I tried that. you and anime lady jumped on it and scrutinized every little aspect of the tests, including ''those were at max settings, therefore 100% invalid''.
Because it was an invalid source. Stop acting like an idiot, it's painful to read. It's been thoroughly explained why that Tek Syndicate video is invalid, it simply doesn't follow the testing methodology required to be a source considered legitimate. If you live in Canada like flagdog says, you should have done a god damn lab report for a high school science class in your lifetime, you should be fully aware of the procedure needed for properly presenting empirical evidence and making a conclusion and you should know why that video isn't something you can legitimately cite as evidence.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;40792207]Because it was an invalid source. Stop acting like an idiot, it's painful to read. It's been thoroughly explained why that Tek Syndicate video is invalid, it simply doesn't follow the testing methodology required to be a source considered legitimate. If you live in Canada like flagdog says, you should have done a god damn lab report for a high school science class in your lifetime, you should be fully aware of the procedure needed for properly presenting empirical evidence and making a conclusion and you should know why that video isn't something you can legitimately cite as evidence.[/QUOTE]
I'm explaining what my opinion is and why I have said opinion, you're telling me to stop posting and rating everything I say dumb, and I'M acting like an idiot? I think you're taking this entire discussion too seriously, and getting legit angry every time I say something you don't agree with. and no I never did any lab report because, as you should know, our educational system is a big fucking joke.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40792150]I never said they're part of an anti-AMD conspiracy. I said they don't think they're missing anything with the FX series so they're not looking into it any further than that. I tried looking for intel benchmarks and 8150 benchmarks but all the results I found were useless to this discussion. my ''source'' is not some article I read or review on a hardware site. it's my experience with having the 8150 myself, and talking to other people who have i7s and hearing what their experience with certain games is like.
''just post some kind of source'' I tried that. you and anime lady jumped on it and scrutinized every little aspect of the tests, including ''those were at max settings, therefore 100% invalid''.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the professionals are just missing out what's going on in the CPU space.
These guys do this stuff for a living, and I promise you that they're well aware of what's going on. Analogies are not suitable when we're in need of hard data, and I think you know that too. You can have your own opinion on the subject matter, but I can tell you that you're wrong.
I know that because I've talked with people that run Bulldozer CPUs and I run an i5 2500K myself.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40792405]Yeah, the professionals are just missing out what's going on in the CPU space.
These guys do this stuff for a living, and I promise you that they're well aware of what's going on. Analogies are not suitable when we're in need of hard data, and I think you know that too. You can have your own opinion on the subject matter, but I can tell you that you're wrong.
I know that because I've talked with people that run Bulldozer CPUs and I run an i5 2500K myself.[/QUOTE]
tek syndicate does that shit for a living too so why does that suddenly mean anything? microsoft makes consoles for a living, and yet xbox one still happened.
stop post
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40792512]tek syndicate does that shit for a living too so why does that suddenly mean anything? microsoft makes consoles for a living, and yet xbox one still happened.[/QUOTE]
I'm starting to get a bit tired of you - I've already explained why Tek Syndicate isn't up to scratch. Tomshardware, Andandtech and the like are in a totally different league.
Tell me - what's more likely; Tek Syndicate has a bad testing methodology (as shown by the big i5/i7 flukes) or that the entire professional hardware world has missed Bulldozer/Piledriver's obvious performance advantage. Even AMD is not aware of it, which is why they haven't asked for new reviews, as they did when Windows 7 got a bulldozer "hotfix".
Now tell me with a straight face that only Tek Syndicate and you have noticed this and that everyone's just bonkers.
If you want to check up on the Windows 7 patch and its results, simply search: "amd bulldozer windows 7 patch" and work your way from there.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40792405]Yeah, the professionals are just missing out what's going on in the CPU space.
[/QUOTE]
Professionals don't really give a shit about the desktop CPU market.
[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;40793541]Professionals don't really give a shit about the desktop CPU market.[/QUOTE]
What professionals are we talking about here? Intel's chip designer or the people that work for Anandtech?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40793590]What professionals are we talking about here? Intel's chip designer or the people that work for Anandtech?[/QUOTE]
People who work in IT.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40793520]I'm starting to get a bit tired of you - I've already explained why Tek Syndicate isn't up to scratch. Tomshardware, Andandtech and the like are in a totally different league.
Tell me - what's more likely; Tek Syndicate has a bad testing methodology (as shown by the big i5/i7 flukes) or that the entire professional hardware world has missed Bulldozer/Piledriver's obvious performance advantage. Even AMD is not aware of it, which is why they haven't asked for new reviews, as they did when Windows 7 got a bulldozer "hotfix".
Now tell me with a straight face that only Tek Syndicate and you have noticed this and that everyone's just bonkers.
If you want to check up on the Windows 7 patch and its results, simply search: "amd bulldozer windows 7 patch" and work your way from there.[/QUOTE]
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in saying ''these guys do this for a living, they obviously know what they're talking about'' while also saying ''tek syndicate is completely invalid'' when they also do it for a living. I'm not debating that most of the people who do those benchmarks are more suited to the job than 2 guys running a youtube channel, but I just think the FX series has been overlooked and unfairly dismissed by the general hardware community.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40793987]I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in saying ''these guys do this for a living, they obviously know what they're talking about'' while also saying ''tek syndicate is completely invalid'' when they also do it for a living. I'm not debating that most of the people who do those benchmarks are more suited to the job than 2 guys running a youtube channel, but I just think the FX series has been overlooked and unfairly dismissed by the general hardware community.[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't think it has been treated entirely fairly either, but a lot of stuff is made out to look worse than it is - you're in a thread about one right now. This doesn't make the FX series any better than it is - it [I]is[/I] worse than what Intel is selling right now, and that's just how it is. Doesn't make it outright bad, but it's only really a good deal when you're on a tight budget.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.